9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is obligated under various non-cancellable lease agreements providing for office space, warehouse space, and automobiles that expire at various dates through the year 2019.

Rent expense under operating leases was $7.4 million, $4.6 million and $4.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Future minimum rental payments at December 31, 2013 under the operating leases referred to above are as follows:

Year Ending December 31:

2014	$	5,050
2015	4,958
2016	4,207
2017	1,089
2018	493
2019 and thereafter	1,577
	$	17,374

Contractual obligations – The Company has the following contractual obligations related primarily to sponsorships and other commitments as of December 31, 2013:

Year Ending December 31:

2014	$	60,241
2015	23,505
2016	9,694
2017	500
2018	-
2019 and thereafter	-
	$	93,940

On August 12, 2013, the Company moved into its new corporate headquarters located in Corona, CA, which was previously acquired by the Company in October 2012.

Purchase Commitments – The Company has purchase commitments aggregating approximately $44.5 million at December 31, 2013, which represent commitments made by the Company and its subsidiaries to various suppliers of raw materials for the production of its products. These obligations vary in terms, but are generally satisfied within one year.

The Company purchases various raw material items, including, but not limited to, flavors, ingredients, dietary ingredients, containers, milk, cream and protein, from a limited number of resources. An interruption in supply from any of such resources could result in the Company’s inability to produce certain products for limited or possibly extended periods of time. The aggregate value of purchases from suppliers of such limited resources described above for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $282.5 million, $264.2 million and $279.5 million, respectively.

Value Added Tax (“VAT”) – The Company sought guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the VAT taxing authority in the United Kingdom, to ascertain if the Company should have charged VAT to certain customers in the United Kingdom on a portion of the Company’s sales to those customers beginning in 2010. The Company did not receive conclusive guidance from HMRC and is considering alternative ways to clarify its tax position on this matter. Should it be determined that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, the VAT would represent only a pass-through tax to our customers in the United Kingdom. Therefore, any related adjustment should represent an accounts receivable and accounts payable gross-up on the balance sheet and have no impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company estimates the maximum amount of the potential VAT pass-through tax to be $49.7 million at December 31, 2013 ($33.2 million at December 31, 2012). If it is determined that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, it is possible that a tax penalty may be assessed by HMRC. However, the Company believes any such penalty would not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Guarantees – The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify parties against third party claims. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship, (ii) certain distribution or purchase agreements under which the Company may have to indemnify the Company’s customers from any claim, liability or loss arising out of any actual or alleged injury or damages suffered in connection with the consumption or purchase of the Company’s products or the use of Company trademarks, and (iii) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for liabilities and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The terms of such obligations vary and typically, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated. Generally, the Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate to cover any resulting liabilities or claims.

Litigation – On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on January 23, 2014. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

Securities Litigation – On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”).

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014. Fact discovery in the action was stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the parties are currently negotiating the terms of a possible settlement of the action. On February 11, 2014, the District Court entered an Order staying the action to allow the parties time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file papers seeking approval of any proposed settlement. A status conference is scheduled for March 13, 2014. Management believes that any potential settlement, if completed, will be fully paid by insurance and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.”

On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion.

On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action described below was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss and on December 16, 2013, the Central District Court granted the City Attorney’s renewed motion, dismissing the action. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2013.

On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court.

On January 15, 2014, the Company filed a demurrer to and motion to strike allegations in the complaint in the San Francisco Action. The demurrer and motion to strike are currently scheduled for a hearing on March 4, 2014. The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.